6.1 The accession negotiations with Romania and Bulgaria
were concluded in December 2004 and a Treaty of Accession was
signed on 25 April 2005. The UK ratified the Treaty on 5 April
2006.

6.2 The Commission's October 2005 and May 2006 monitoring
reports identified a number of areas where further improvements
were needed in order to meet all membership requirements 
some technical, involving physical security, animal and human
health, and financial controls; others political, revolving around
judicial administration, corruption, organised crime and human
rights; but all going to the heart of a properly functioning governance
system based on the effective implementation of laws by an accountable,
independent and effective judiciary and bureaucracy. Given the
nature and number of these reservations about both countries'
readiness for accession on 1 January 2007, the Commission and
the Council agreed to postpone a final decision until autumn 2006.
The Accession Treaty allowed for a delay until 2008, but only
if the Commission recommended that either country was "manifestly
unprepared" for membership. The Commission's final verdict
was that both countries would be in a position to take on the
responsibilities of membership by 2007.

6.3 There were, however, still significant shortcomings,
particularly on JHA issues (for details, see our previous Reports).
So, various post-accession measures were put in place, the most
crucial being the Mechanism on Cooperation and Verification 
a process whereby, having set benchmarks on JHA issues, the Commission
works closely with both governments on steps to meet them, and
reports to the European Parliament and the Council, with the sanction
of non-recognition of judicial decisions under mutual recognition
arrangements if progress was insufficient.[31]
Accession on 1 January 2007 was now essentially a fait accompli;
however, given the range of outstanding issues and their implications
for actual and aspiring candidates, we recommended that the Commission's
final verdict be debated in the European Standing Committee. That
debate took place on 15 January 2007.[32]

6.4 Romania's benchmarks are:

Benchmark 1  Reform
of judicial process

Benchmark 2  Establishment of an integrity
agency

Benchmark 3  Investigation of high level
corruption

Benchmark 4  Corruption, in particular
within local government

Bulgaria's benchmarks are:

Benchmark 1  Independence/
accountability of judicial system

Benchmark 2  Transparency/efficiency of
judicial process

Benchmark 3  Reform of the judiciary

Benchmark 4  High level corruption

Benchmark 5  Corruption at borders and
in local government

Benchmark 6  Organised crime

The Commission 2009 Interim Reports

6.5 The Commission monitors progress and writes reports
every 6 months: interim reports at the start of the year and main
reports at mid-year. These are the latest interim reports for
both countries. Both are described as a technical update on significant
developments during the 6 months prior to 15 January 2009; not
an assessment of progress achieved, but "limited to measures
that have either been completed or where their finalisation can
be expected".

6.6 Both are summarised in detail in our most recent
Report, together with the history of the Committee's consideration
and assessment of the process thus far.

6.7 The Bulgaria Report concludes thus:

"The next assessment of progress by the Commission
in summer 2009 will show the extent to which Bulgaria has been
able to address the shortcomings identified by the Commission
in the reform of the judiciary and to produce convincing and tangible
results in the fight against corruption and organised crime. In
order to demonstrate systemic and irreversible change, Bulgaria
needs to show that it has put in place an autonomously functioning,
stable judiciary which is able to detect and sanction conflicts
of interests, corruption and organized crime and preserve the
rule of law. This means in particular adopting the remaining laws
needed to complete the legal system and showing through concrete
cases of indictments, trials and convictions regarding high-level
corruption and organised crime that the legal system is capable
of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way."

6.8 The Romania Report concludes thus:

"The next assessment of progress by the Commission
in summer 2009 will show to which extent Romania has been able
to successfully address the shortcomings identified in the reform
of the judiciary and to produce convincing and tangible results
in the fight against corruption.

"It will be crucial for Romania to achieve significant,
irreversible progress by then. Romania must demonstrate the existence
of an autonomously functioning, stable judiciary which is able
to detect and sanction corruption and preserve the rule of law.
This means in particular adopting the remaining laws needed to
modernise the legal system and showing through an expeditious
treatment of high-level corruption cases that the legal system
is capable of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient
way."

6.9 In her brief Explanatory Memorandum of 18 March
2009 the Minister for Europe at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Caroline Flint) welcomed these reports and supported the Commission's
proposal to continue with the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
 saying that "a rigorous, transparent and objective
monitoring mechanism" was "essential to support reform
in Romania and Bulgaria, as well as ensuring the integrity of
EU enlargement policy". The Minister agreed with the report
"that EU support  not sanctions  is the best
way to drive forward reforms."

6.10 The Minister noted that both Reports were adopted
at the 23 February General Affairs and External Relations Council.
The Conclusions adopted by the Council are at Annex 1 of this
chapter of our Report.[33]

Our assessment

6.11 For our part, we noted that, while there had
been some institutional progress, there was still a lack of results,
particularly with regard to successful prosecutions of high level
corruption cases. Notwithstanding that these reports were said
by the Commission to be technical and not assessments of progress,
it was impossible to avoid a sense of continuing, and understandable,
disappointment running through them, which we shared. It was plain
in particular from the "Outlook" sections just how much
doubt continued to remain about the commitment of the authorities
in both countries to get to grips with issues that had been plaguing
them since before accession. Previously, the spotlight was on
Bulgaria; now, it seemed, it was Romania that was going backwards,
and that, disturbingly, parliament remained part of the problem.

6.12 We noted similar hints in the Council Conclusions,
which called upon both countries "to intensify their efforts
in the coming months by taking all necessary steps without delay,
in particular with regard to areas highlighted in the conclusions
of the Interim reports, in order to consolidate progress already
made and calls upon them to achieve substantial and lasting results."

6.13 Against this background, we found it puzzling
that the Minister had nothing to say beyond a mere 64 words of
comment, one sentence of which was lifted almost verbatim from
her predecessor's previous Explanatory Memorandum, and all of
which was about the process rather than what was causing it to
continue to falter. We were again left wondering how this process
was, as the Minister put it, "ensuring the integrity of EU
enlargement policy". We asked in what the circumstances it
might ever be appropriate to impose sanctions, given that each
successive Report continued to paint essentially the same picture
and to propose the same remedy; and asked the Minister to tell
us more about what she thought was continuing to hold back real
progress in both countries.

6.14 We also asked to be told more about a proposal
by the Bulgarian government whereby the Cooperation and Verification
Mechanism would, apparently, be replaced by one in which Commission
and other Member States would be directly involved in tackling
areas where "weaknesses may be qualified as structural and
persistent and cannot be resolved by the Bulgarian government
alone"; what its status was; and what the Minister's views
were of it.[34]

6.15 All in all, we felt that it might be argued
that this process  which, as we have said before, seems
to have been undermined at the outset by the participation of
the parties concerned and, by virtue of beginning after accession,
to be devoid of any effective sanctions  was introduced
too late in the proceedings. The main lesson, we said, was that
this must not be the case when the readiness of Croatia, and others,
came to be judged. As both these Reports said, what was needed
 before accession, not after  was an "autonomously
functioning, stable judiciary which is able to detect and sanction
conflicts of interests, corruption and organized crime and preserve
the rule of law", with "concrete cases of indictments,
trials and convictions regarding high-level corruption and organised
crime" demonstrating that "the legal system is capable
of implementing the laws in an independent and efficient way."
We asked if the Minister agreed that this should be demonstrably
so in other candidate countries before accession takes place.

6.16 We also asked the Minister to explain why these
Reports were adopted so peremptorily, with no opportunity for
proper scrutiny, and to undertake to ensure that the full monitoring
Reports are deposited in good time for proper scrutiny prior to
their consideration by the Council.

6.18 The Minister says that she agrees with the Committee's
overall assessment and shares its view of the underlying sense
of disappointment reflected in the reports:

"Romania and Bulgaria both have a significant
amount of progress to make before they meet the requirements of
CVM. They need to make this progress in order to maximise the
benefits of EU membership."

6.19 With regard to the Government's views on barriers
to progress, the Minister says:

"Although some progress is being made in both
countries, it is being held back by a variety of reasons 
institutional inertia, political point scoring, resistance to
change, lack of experience and lack of will. In Bulgaria, the
influence of organised crime is an additional complication. The
only way to tackle these is to continue to work with Bulgaria
and Romania, provide honest and direct advice and to work closely
with EU partners and the Commission through the CVM."

6.20 With regard to the circumstances in which the
use of sanctions  or safeguards, as they are referred to
in the CVM  would be considered, the Minister says:

"The Commission has made it clear that the safeguards
are intended as a last resort. The justice and home affairs safeguard
may be activated by the Commission to suspend the obligation on
other Member States to apply and recognise judicial decisions
(for example the issuing of European Arrest Warrants) and judgments
made by the state to which the safeguard applies. The safeguard
is a blunt tool and we believe that the regular Commission reports
under the CVM and diplomatic pressure for improvement, not least
from the UK, are useful levers."

6.21 The Minister then turns to "lessons learned
from the experience of Bulgarian and Romanian accession and in
particular how those lessons are being applied to Croatia",
and says:

"As I said in the European Committee B Debate
on 2 February, lessons have been learned from the previous round
of enlargement. The new chapter covering judicial reform, fundamental
rights and anti-corruption has been introduced. I agree with the
Committee that we need to tackle the issues around judicial and
public administration reform early on in the process."

6.22 With regard to the proposal from the Bulgarian
Prime Minister "to recruit experts from Member States to
work in priority areas of their administration", the Minister
says:

"Commission President Barroso has replied to
the Bulgarian proposal stating that in the Commission's view the
CVM is the best mechanism to promote reform within Bulgaria and
that what is needed is sustained, concrete results, not new institutional
structures. We support this response.

"Foreign experts working in other Member States
is not a new development and has been happening via the EU Twinning
programme since 1998. For example, UK Ministry of Justice experts
are currently working with their Bulgarian counterparts on prison
reform and probation service reform projects in Bulgaria. However,
foreign expertise and cooperation is not sufficient on its own
and responsibility for progress continues to lie with the Bulgarian
government."

6.23 Finally, the Minister asks the Committee to
"rest assured that the full monitoring Reports will be deposited
with the Committee as soon as we have a published, final, version."

Conclusion

6.24 More than two years after accession, as the
Minister says, both Bulgaria and Romania "have a significant
amount of progress to make before they meet the requirements of
CVM." In our view, this progress needs to be made not just
in order for them "to maximise the benefits of EU membership",
but also for the rest of the EU not to find itself with the benefits
of enlargement being undermined.

6.25 As the Minister also notes, the CVM safeguard
is "a blunt tool". Plainly, for both parties 
the EU and the candidate state  to benefit fullyfrom
accession, it is essential for the issues that continue not to
be addressed effectively by Bulgaria and Romania to be addressed,
and not early on in the process (as the Minister puts it), but
(as we put it, and with which we invited the Minister to agree,
but which she seems reluctant to endorse) before accession takes
place. The experience with the CVM process is that leaving any
aspect of judicial reform, fundamental rights and anti-corruption
until after accession is an invitation to the same "institutional
inertia, political point scoring, resistance to change, lack of
experience and lack of will" that, as she says, continues
to blight Bulgaria and Romania and thus to short-change all concerned.

6.26 We also note that the Minister still does
not explain why these Reports were adopted so peremptorily, with
no opportunity for proper scrutiny; nor are we at all assured
by what she says regarding the main Reports in the summer. Given
the overall context, we believe that the House has the right to
consider these Reports, and if necessary to have them debated,
prior to the adoption of any Conclusions by the Council. We accordingly
ask the Minister to assure us that she will ensure that they are
deposited in accordance with this request.

6.27 In the meantime, we shall continue to retain
the documents under scrutiny.

31 Commission
Decision 2006/929/EC of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism
for cooperation and verification of progress in Bulgaria and Romania
to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform
and the fight against corruption and organised crime (OJ No. L
354, 14.12.06, p. 56 and 58; see http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:354:0056:0057:EN:PDF
and http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006:354:0058:0060:EN:PDF). Back